English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

9 answers

yes and no. It a bigger fish that swallows the small fish but the western world is all about economic progress. Isn't it? The true test of economic growth is that it is evenly divided. Unfortunately the world's 90% of wealth is in the hands of about 2% of the most wealthy people in the world. Rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer. This inequality will prove destructive eventually.

2006-12-19 05:50:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Good for the American comsumer get cheaper electronics as a result of walmarts presense in the community. Also, some towns walmart is a boom because they would have to drive 60 miles to the nearest store to get a computer or TV set. Its a double edge sword when Walmart hires people and the people end up on Medicaide and the taxpayer get stuck with the bill. If we took out the healthcare debate out of politics then you get paid what your worth then. True, if there 30 applicants for one job then no point to pay higher wages that applies to any job. Personally, there should no minimum wage requirement on any company long as they provide basic healthcare for the workers. I rather open up healthcare coverage to workers before I would raise the minimum wage like congress wants to do. Basic healthcare is a human right, a wage is what your worth to me or the employer.

2006-12-19 17:08:39 · answer #2 · answered by ram456456 5 · 0 0

In a word, yes.

You see many Wal-Mart critics claiming that Wal-Mart doesn't pay well. However, wages are earned based on a worker's skills and training. To expect workers with no skills and no training to be paid more is ridiculous. As workers gain more experience, pay is increased. Also, Wal-Mart pays well compared to its employees' alternatives. If this is not the case, why does Wal-Mart receive 10 times the amount of applications over the number of jobs they have available every time they open up a store.

Second, wealth isn't just about how much you make - it is about how much you can afford. Wal-Mart saves American shoppers approx. 30% on their monthly needs. That can be extremely useful for Joe and Jane average who are struggling to make ends meet.

Third, you often see the argument about Wal-Mart forcing mom and pop shops to close, and that this is a bad thing. To counter this, you only need to use logic. Why would mom and pop shops close when Wal-Mart moves into town? Because American shoppers realize the value that Wal-Mart provides and thus choose to shop there!

The arguments you see against Wal-Mart are merely a smear campaign that has been engineered by labor unions and labor union advocates, because Wal-Mart hires only non-union employees and unions know that their stores can't compete because of the value Wal-Mart provides.

2006-12-19 14:38:01 · answer #3 · answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 · 0 0

Double-edge sword. It is good for the American economy because they low prices which leads the average consumer to the store. The down side is, to keep these low cost they also have low pay scales, which puts the damper on the American wage earner working in Walmart.

2006-12-19 13:44:57 · answer #4 · answered by Floss 3 · 2 1

The answer that 'Floss' gave is right. Wal-Mart has low prices but they don't pay their employees well. They also don't have a good benefits package for employees. I've heard a lot of horror stories about Wal-Mart. You should check out, Wal-Mart Watch.com. They have some good articles on there that uncover the truths about Wal-Mart. My fear is that one day when Wal-Mart shuts all the 'little guys' down, that they will monopolize. But I believe that their idea of closing down 'Lay-Away' will hurt them in the long run. Wal-Mart is good for the economy right now. Everyone I know goes their atleast once a week. And when income taxes come in, most people run to Wal-Mart.

2006-12-19 13:53:04 · answer #5 · answered by Ash 3 · 0 0

no how could it be most of the workers are on goverment health benefits because they don't offer benefits or pay enough for the employees to afford there own. besides lining politicians pockets so they are allowed to conduct such buisness in such away oh yea cheap socks. i can't see how this can be good for anyone except consumers who don't care about any body but themselfs.

2006-12-19 16:40:04 · answer #6 · answered by robert s 3 · 0 1

I dont think so.

I also discovered that WalMart doesn't honor the U.S. child labor laws, and also exploites the children who work on their products overseas.

They will never get my business again.

2006-12-19 13:49:27 · answer #7 · answered by Barry 6 · 0 0

No

Ma and Pa store would had hire the same people but pays more

2006-12-19 13:49:12 · answer #8 · answered by taco 2 · 0 1

YES!

2006-12-19 13:47:49 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers